"In short our Lord choose specially Peter to lead the Church. He partnered Peter in his ministry and entrusted His disciples and faithful to Peter. This is the reason why the early church and other disciples accepted Peter as their leader. So people who say Apostles Thomas and Apostle Peter have the same authority have not studied the Bible or have a hidden agenda."

See also, the following, which was told to me by a deacon (jurisdiction withheld):

Quote

"If you will ask a Coptic hierarch, they might say that St. Mark established the see of Alexandria in the stead of St. Peter. Petrine lineage was required to establish a hierarchy at the Council of Nicea (AD 325) (though not the importance of a particular church). This council codified the Bishops of Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch as the universal primates for their respective sphere of influence. Each demonstrated an acceptable lineage from the "chief of the Apostles." These bishops were given the title "Patriarch."

I'm pretty sure this exact subject has been discussed here before. I'll look for the thread. If anyone else can think of where it is and find it, I'd be very greatful. I would hate to reinvent the wheel here, as they say.

Forgive my ignorance if this has also been discussed in depth, But I'd like to know what my Coptic brethren think specifically about this quote:

Quote

"If you will ask a Coptic hierarch, they might say that St. Mark established the see of Alexandria in the stead of St. Peter. Petrine lineage was required to establish a hierarchy at the Council of Nicea (AD 325) (though not the importance of a particular church). This council codified the Bishops of Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch as the universal primates for their respective sphere of influence. Each demonstrated an acceptable lineage from the "chief of the Apostles." These bishops were given the title "Patriarch."

Forgive my ignorance if this has also been discussed in depth, But I'd like to know what my Coptic brethren think specifically about this quote:

The Coptic story goes that St. Mark came as a result of the confrontation between Sts. Paul and Barnabas over taking St. Mark with each of them. On his way home, he stops by Alexandria and thus begins his ministry and evangelism of Egypt. No mention of St. Peter at all in this.

The see of Alexandria was historically known as the "evangelical see" in honor of her founder St. Mark.

The question to the poster then is what was the point of Constantinople later on? In the council of Nicea, it seemed clear to me that these were major cities, and had nothing to with their founders. The mention of the Apostolic succession is an added honor. But it would be no different than giving New York or London primacy honors.

Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for "unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain." (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.

I can answer part of this inquiry. It is my understanding that Rome was accorded the primary honor because it was the capitol of the Empire. Similarly, Alexandria and Antioch were provincial capitols. Jerusalem was accorded honor, because of Christ's ministry there. When Constantinole was added, the canon even explains, "because it is New Rome," the capitol on the East Roman Empire.

Although the Apostolic Founders of these cities has been made know, it seems to me, looking at the Scriptures too, including the Churches Saint Paul addressed therein, due to the responsibilities of the Apostles, weren't all of the early Churches founded by Apostles or their disciples?

Mina and Btrakas, thanks for your replies. You've cleared this up a lot for me. The Deacon's contention was that "Petrine lineage was required to establish a hierarchy at the Council of Nicea ." Judging from your replies, I find that such a requirement was unlikely.

Hello all,I wanted to solicit the opinion of this forum regarding "Petrine primacy" in the OO Church. The following quote is from a Jacobite Syriac website (http://www.stignatious.com/articles/peter.htm) :See also, the following, which was told to me by a deacon (jurisdiction withheld):Thanks!

If you will ask a Coptic hierarch, they might say that St. Mark established the see of Alexandria in the stead of St. Peter. Petrine lineage was required to establish a hierarchy at the Council of Nicea (AD 325) (though not the importance of a particular church). This council codified the Bishops of Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch as the universal primates for their respective sphere of influence. Each demonstrated an acceptable lineage from the "chief of the Apostles." These bishops were given the title "Patriarch."

This seems to be a back projection of the letter of Pope Gregory of Rome to the Pope of Alexandria, where he states that Rome, Alexandria and Antioch (he doesn't mention Jerusalem: the patriarchal line there is from St. James, someone ultramontanist have a hard time explaining away) are all one See of Peter.

Peter and his "lineage" played no part at Nicea in anything. Canon 6 talks about the rights of Rome and Alexandria, but I don't recall it saying anything about Peter.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

Ialmisry, was this letter from Pope Gregory written before or after Jerusalem was declared a Patriarchate?

After. At the time he was complaining about Constantinople taking the title of Ecumenical Patriarch, so Jerusalem perhaps was a little off his radar.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

A notice for the feast of Ss. Peter and Paul on 5 Abib, or June 29, reads:

"...when [the Lord] chose Peter, He made him first of the disciples..........Then the Lord gave him the best part, established him as cornerstone of the Church....." [PO 17:622-3].

The Coptic Synaxarian commemorates Peter's confession on 7 Mesore, or July 31 and says:

"....Peter became the head of the disciples, and lieutenant [sic] at Rome, for the authority over all the heads of the world...." [PO 17:710].

The Ethiopian Synaxarian commorates St. Peter on 7 Nahase [August 13] and refers to him as "head of the apostles.....He [Peter] is established over all the princes of the world, the patriarchs, metropolitans, bishops, priests, deacons, and the entire priestly clerical order..." [PO 9:291-2].

PETER AND PAUL

In the tradition of the Church, Saints Peter and Paul enjoy a certain distinction within the apostolic choir: they are leaders or "chiefest" of the apostles. Several fathers use this language; for example Venantius Fortunatus, the Latin hymnographer, proclaimed:

"[Paul] was more learned in his admonitions; [Peter] was higher in rank......the one opens the way to heaven by his teachings, the other by the key." [Miscellanea III, 7. PL 88:126].

Peter was prince by virtue of the key; Paul was also first by his teaching. [Miscellanea IX, 2. PL 88:299].

There are also many testimonies to Saint Peter's primacy in the Syriac liturgies, but that will have to wait for another day. He is also given primacy in west Syrian liturgies.

Saint Leo

"The right of using this authority passed on to the other apostles, but what is intimated to all is, not without reason, commended to one. For this [authority] is singularly entrusted to Peter, because the form of Peter is set before all the rulers of the Church. The priviledge of Peter remains, therefore, wherever judgement is passed through his equity, nor is there excessive severity or remission where nothing shall be bound, nothing loosed, what Blessed Peter shall have either bound or loosed." [Sermon 83: PL 54:430].

The Greek Church celebrated the feast of the chains of St. Peter on January 16. The text venerates Peter as the coryphaeus, "rock of the faith," "key bearer," protothrone," and "law-giver, shepherd and teacher of Christ's flock." [Menaion, Athens 1979, January, 138-45].

Note: According to Liddell and Scott, a standard Greek lexicon, the term "coryphaeus" or "koruphaios," comes from Attic drama and "refers to the leader of the chorus, and means "foremost man, leader, chief." [Oxford University Press 1933, s.v.].

Texts for the feast of Ss. Peter and Paul, on June 29, refer to Peter as the leader [prostates] of the Church, the "great president," to whom Christ "entrusted the helm of the Church." [Pitra, LXXIII, LXXVI].

Texts for the commoration of all the apostles, on June 30, call Peter the "foundation of all the faithful," exarch of the apostles," and "divine and sacred head." [Ed. J.B. Pitra, op. cit., XIII, XVII].

A tenth century Byzantine Menology, published by B. Latysev, is strikingly reminiscent of the thinking of St. John Chrysostomos. On June 29, feast of saints Peter and Paul, it has the following notice about St. Peter, alluding to his fall and restoration:

"...and see, he learns to be patient to sinners, and he received simply the diocese of the whole world..."[Menologii Anonymi Byzantini Saeculi X Quae Supersunt, Petropolis, 1911-1912. Fasc. II, 115].

An Armenian Synaxarion attributed to to Catholicos Gregory VII of Anawarza [c.1300] commemorates, on 9 Aratz [January 6], a feast in honor of the chains of Peter, "head" of the apostles and rock of the Church." The Gregorian Synaxiarian calls Peter "head of the apostles."[PO 19:46, 734].

An Egyptian source from the early seventh century remarks that God made a promise, "saying to the chosen one and head of the apostles," Peter: "Thou art a rock, and upon it I shall build my church." [Chronicle of Michael the Syrian, Bk X, 26. Ed. J. Chabot, 2:284].

Where are the other sources and quotes I gave? I am finding the Orthodox to be the most terrified and discriminating on this subject then anyone. I quote the Church Fathers, and the Orthodox are horrified.

Where are the other sources and quotes I gave? I am finding the Orthodox to be the most terrified and discriminating on this subject then anyone. I quote the Church Fathers, and the Orthodox are horrified.

Please. Stop being melodramatic--it's not conducive to discussion here and calling "the Orthodox" (as if we are all the same) horrified, terrified, dishonest is insulting. A lot of us are ex Latins. We have seen those quotes a million times.

The very last quote calls St. Peter "a rock" and not "the rock" upon which the Church will be built. That's pleasing for me to read.

Also, I don't think anyone denies that both St. Peter and St. Paul were heads of the Apostles. However, the idea that St. Peter gave St. Mark his blessing to establish a Church in Egypt is something that I never heard of before.

And we asked a simple question. What Church do you go to?

And as we discussed in other threads, when we say to the Theotokos to "save us" or to "forgive us," is she the sole savior and forgiver? In the Coptic Church we call her THE salvation of our father Adam.

So to take the Petrine honors literally would lead to error.

« Last Edit: May 10, 2008, 12:57:48 PM by minasoliman »

Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for "unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain." (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.

Where are the other sources and quotes I gave? I am finding the Orthodox to be the most terrified and discriminating on this subject then anyone. I quote the Church Fathers, and the Orthodox are horrified.

I'm not sure what you mean. I don't think anything of what you wrote has been deleted. I know I didn't delete anything. Can you be more specific? Also, I don't think any of us are "horrified." At least I'm not. I guess it takes a lot to horrify me now a days.

Where are the other sources and quotes I gave? I am finding the Orthodox to be the most terrified and discriminating on this subject then anyone. I quote the Church Fathers, and the Orthodox are horrified.

There is a "moderation log" for the site which logs all deletions, modifications, etc. made by the moderators (who are the only people who can edit your post besides yourself), and according to it no posts have been deleted since May 7 when I deleted some in another place. Also, events in the moderation log cannot be modified or deleted within 24 hours of their occuring, so no one would be able to, say, delete your post today and delete the log entry today. So no one has removed anything of yours from this thread (or any others). You may have exceeded the character limit of the post, or had a malfunction on your end - but we have done nothing to remove any information you've posted here.

Logged

"O Cross of Christ, all-holy, thrice-blessed, and life-giving, instrument of the mystical rites of Zion, the holy Altar for the service of our Great Archpriest, the blessing - the weapon - the strength of priests, our pride, our consolation, the light in our hearts, our mind, and our steps"Met. Meletios of Nikopolis & Preveza, from his ordination.

Please. Stop being melodramatic--it's not conducive to discussion here and calling "the Orthodox" (as if we are all the same) horrified, terrified, dishonest is insulting. A lot of us are ex Latins. We have seen those quotes a million times.

No, you have not seen this material unless you can read Greek, Latin, Armenian and Coptic primary sources and studied hundreds of volumes.

The primacy of Saint Peter is shown in the Scriptures. Christ told Peter to "poimaino" [rule] his sheep in John 21:16, and in verse 16 Christ tells him to give spiritual nurishment to the sheep [bosko].

The Fathers are unanimous on the primacy of Peter.

SAINT CYPRIAN

"Peter...upon whom the Church was founded by the condescendence of the Lord..." [De Bono Pat., 9].

SAINT BASIL

[Peter] "on account of the pre-eminence of his faith, received on himself the building of the Church." [Against Eunomius II, 4. PG 29:577].

"The house of God, which is the Church of the living God, the foundations of which are on the holy mountains, [is] built upon the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets. One of these mountains also was Peter, upon which rock the Lord promised to build his Church." [On Isaiah, II PG 30:233].

SAINT GREGORY OF NAZIANZEN

"...you see that of the disciples of Christ, who were all great and worthy of election, one is called Rock and is entrusted with the Foundations of the Church..."[ Or. 32. PG 36:193].

[Peter] "the unbroken rock, who had the key." [Poem. Moral. in laud, Virg. PG. 37:559].

"Peter, head of the apostles......the unbroken and most firm rock upon which the Lord built the Church." [Alt. Or. de S. Steph. PG 46:733].

SAINT CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIA

"He allows him no longer to be called Simon, already exercising authority and power over him, as being of Hid house, but changes [his name] to Peter [rock], for upon him was He about to found His Church." [PG 73:220].

SAINT CYRIL OF JERUSALEM

Peter, the leader [protostates] of the apostles, and chief herald of the Church..."[Cat. XI, 3. PG 33: 693].

AMBROSIASTER

"It was fitting that [Paul] should desire to see Peter, because he was first among the apostles, to whom the Savior had delegated the care of the churches." [In Gal. 1, 18. PL 17:344].

I can go on and on citing the fathers and ancient liturgical traditions from east and west. In a real sense, the honeymoon of ignorance is over.

Why have you consistently caleld "Poimaino" Rule, when it is from the root "Poimin" which is "Shepherd" (noun), and Poimaino has been traditionally interpreted as "shepherd" (verb)?

Logged

"O Cross of Christ, all-holy, thrice-blessed, and life-giving, instrument of the mystical rites of Zion, the holy Altar for the service of our Great Archpriest, the blessing - the weapon - the strength of priests, our pride, our consolation, the light in our hearts, our mind, and our steps"Met. Meletios of Nikopolis & Preveza, from his ordination.

"O Cross of Christ, all-holy, thrice-blessed, and life-giving, instrument of the mystical rites of Zion, the holy Altar for the service of our Great Archpriest, the blessing - the weapon - the strength of priests, our pride, our consolation, the light in our hearts, our mind, and our steps"Met. Meletios of Nikopolis & Preveza, from his ordination.

I have. I want to hear it from you - give me a convincing argument, because I'm not 100% convinced. I have taken Ancient, New Testament, Liturgical, and Modern Greek. I'm giving you a chance to convince me, and not dismissing you out of hand. But I need to be convinced on this point, and that normally requires (a) definition from a reputable source, and (b) ancient sources where your alternative usage fits. Heck, you can ask pensateomnia for help, if you'd like - he was always much better at Ancient and New Testament Greek than I (he's very good).

Logged

"O Cross of Christ, all-holy, thrice-blessed, and life-giving, instrument of the mystical rites of Zion, the holy Altar for the service of our Great Archpriest, the blessing - the weapon - the strength of priests, our pride, our consolation, the light in our hearts, our mind, and our steps"Met. Meletios of Nikopolis & Preveza, from his ordination.

Cleveland looked into and was able to confirm that none of you posts or quotes have been deleted. Can you tell us why you are making that claim? Did you type something and it didn't show up when you posted? As Cleveland pointed out, there may be other explanations for that. If you posted something here that disappeared, you are free to try to post it again.

Also, just to help us in understanding you better, it really would be nice if you could tell us which Church you are from. Who's your patriarch?

Patriarchates were elevated as such, by the canons of the Ecumenical councils. These cities were ecclesiastical centers of the early church, simply becauase they were the largest and most prestigious cities of the empire, (and naturally the apostles went there to preach), they did not go to tiny rural villages. The Petrine theory (that patriarchates must have ties to Peter) is actually an invention of Pope Damasus (and later mentioned by pope Gregory)- who employed it immediately following the council of Constantinople in 381 a.d. with the passage of Canon 3 which elevated Constantinople. In fact Pope Damasus is the one who coined the phrase "Apostolic See" as a title for Rome since Constantinople was not known for having been found by an apostle. These are the roots of the rivalry between "Elder Rome" and 'New Rome"

As St Helena built the first christian temples in Jerusalem and as christianity spread thru-out the empire , Jerusalem became a major pilgrimage site and eventually eclipsed Ceasaria in importance, thus Jerusalem also was elevated to a patriarchate.

Patriarchates have nothing do with who found those churches, but everything with the civil importance of that city to the empire. This is seen by the wording of canon 3 of Constantinople. Its also felt by canon 9 of the Council of Antioch held in 341 a.d.:"It behoves the bishops in every province to acknowledge the bishop who presides in the metropolis, and who has to take thought of the whole province; BECAUSE ALL MEN OF BUSINESS COME TOGETHER FROM EVEY QUARTER TO THE METROPOLIS, wherefore it is decreed that he have precedence in rank, and that the other bishops do not do anything extraordinary without him, according to the ancient canon which prevailed from the times of our Fathers...."

Hello all,I wanted to solicit the opinion of this forum regarding "Petrine primacy" in the OO Church. The following quote is from a Jacobite Syriac website (http://www.stignatious.com/articles/peter.htm) :See also, the following, which was told to me by a deacon (jurisdiction withheld):Thanks!

After reading the link provided, one doesnt have to be OO to realize that this person is pushing the same agenda he denounces in the article. Attempting to use Peter to elevate the Jacobite Church over the Indian Church of St. Thomas. Afterall there have been tensions between factions of these two churches, havent there??? He claims that the Lord loved Peter more than any other apostle, yet the Gospel of John calls John the beloved disciple and the disciple that Jesus Loved. Ironically the article specifically implys Peter as "annointing" Antioch, if you will, and then specifically singles out St Thomas.

Thank you, Buzuxi, for reminding us of the original intent of this thread, which was to explore an issue that exists between our Syrian and Indian Orthodox brothers. I suppose as moderator I should tell everyone that this discussion should really be limited to that.

So Euthymios, unless you are Syriac Orthodox (which I doubt, considering your characterization of Pope Leo as "Saint,") you really should keep your discussion of Petrine Primacy to the other threads on this forum in which you have addressed that issue. It probably would be best in the Orthodox-Other Christian discussion forum:

After reading the link provided, one doesnt have to be OO to realize that this person is pushing the same agenda he denounces in the article. Attempting to use Peter to elevate the Jacobite Church over the Indian Church of St. Thomas. Afterall there have been tensions between factions of these two churches, havent there??? He claims that the Lord loved Peter more than any other apostle, yet the Gospel of John calls John the beloved disciple and the disciple that Jesus Loved. Ironically the article specifically implys Peter as "annointing" Antioch, if you will, and then specifically singles out St Thomas.

Such nonsense.

It bothers me too frankly. As a Copt who knows that even his own heirarchs stand against Petrine primacy, this should raise eyebrows in the Coptic Church. It's ironic how our daughter churches of Ethiopia and Eritrea who maintain the same Markian authority in their sees are given autocephalous power where no one claims to be primary over the other, and yet someone like this Syrian Indian priest would claim that Petrine authority of Antioch must rule over the Thomas authority of India (why even the mention of St. Thomas to begin with?). If a case must be made between the Indian and Syrian Church, and the case of Peter's authority was brought up, then the Syrian Church is in trouble of preaching what we condemn the Roman Catholics of.

Skimming through this article another thing that bothered me is making St. Peter's denial as really nothing but to trick the crowd, even though Christ used this denial against him previously in a prophetic manner. It's as if St. Peter didn't do anything bad and the repentance of Peter before the risen Christ wasn't really a repentance, but a commission to lead the Church. This interpretation saddens me.

The Syrian Church should censor such remarks. They should make clear their views and beliefs because this seems to convince me that there are many Syrians and Syrian Indians who believe in the false teaching of Petrine primacy over their Indian Orthodox brothers.

Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for "unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain." (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.

ROFL! Now he wants to tell us Greeks how to read our language. I'm impressed though- he's got a Greek concordance

If this guys's Orthodox, I'm the Pope.

Troll.

You know, that is a very un-Christian and judgemental attitude. It was behavior like that, that initially turned me off of Orthodoxy. Orthodoxy is an ethnic religion with no Christianity in it. The people are arrogant and very un-loving; especially the Greeks.

Cleveland looked into and was able to confirm that none of you posts or quotes have been deleted. Can you tell us why you are making that claim? Did you type something and it didn't show up when you posted? As Cleveland pointed out, there may be other explanations for that. If you posted something here that disappeared, you are free to try to post it again.

Also, just to help us in understanding you better, it really would be nice if you could tell us which Church you are from. Who's your patriarch?

I opend a thread called "Peter Chief Apostle," and it was removed the same evening. All I did was cite the fathers. I am not under a patriarch. I am a traditionalist [Kiousis synod].

You know, that is a very un-Christian and judgemental attitude. It was behavior like that, that initially turned me off of Orthodoxy. Orthodoxy is an ethnic religion with no Christianity in it. The people are arrogant and very un-loving; especially the Greeks.

So you admit now you are mendacious in labeling yourself 'Orthodox'? I can really feel the 'love' in your posts here as well.

I'm all for kicking ALL your posts into the Private Forums area where we can be 'honest' with one another.

Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides

Thank you for letting us know about your patriarch situation. This will help us understand you and communicate with you better. What is the Kiousis Synod? I am afraid I haven't heard of it.

Kiousis was a Hierarch who separated from the Metropolitan of Thessaloniki in the late 1970's. His successor is Metropolitan Paul of Astoria who has domain over North and South America and distributes communion to any Ecumenist. The website provides a better explanation.http://www.trueorthodoxy.org/schismatics_kiousites.shtml